Sita Ram Sharma v. State Of Haryana And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.: 108 Civil Writ Petition No.18118 of 2024 (O & M) Date of Decision: August 20, 2024 Sita Ram Sharma ..... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

State of Haryana & others ..... RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA PRESENT: - Mr. Nikhil Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Tribhuvan Dahiya, J (Oral) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent/Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University to grant salary for the post of re-employed Librarian as per Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, with effect from the date of re-employment, i.e., 13.06.2022 till relieving, i.e., 02.11.2023. 2.

It is apparent on record that vide the impugned letter, dated 23.08.2023, Annexure P-8, the petitioner was asked to produce the following two documents for taking decision on his claim for the salary: i) Evidence of innovative library service and organization of published work as per UGC Regulation, 2011.

ii) Revised PPO and other supporting documents with regard to pay drawn.

However, it appears the said documents were not submitted by the petitioner, nor has the final decision been taken by the University. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that one of the documents, i.e., evidence of innovative library service and organization of published work as per UGC Regulations, 2011, is not applicable to the petitioner, AVIN KUMAR 2024.08.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.

CWP No.18118 of 2024 [2] since he was re-employed as Assistant Librarian. The Regulations are applicable only for the directly recruited. He further contends that revised PPO and other supporting documents will be submitted to the University, and the petitioner will be satisfied in case a direction is issued to take expeditious decision on his claim for salary in terms of Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules, 2016. 4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate, appears on behalf of respondent no.3-University and contends that the petitioner's claim will be decided in case he submits the requisite documents. 5.

In view thereof, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit the requisite documents to the University within two weeks from today, whereupon the Registrar shall finally decide his claim by passing a speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks therefrom. 6.

In case the order is not passed within the stipulated period, the officer concerned shall pay costs of ` 25,000 to the petitioner. 7.

Since the main petition stands decided, pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (Tribhuvan Dahiya) Judge August 20, 2024 avin Whether Speaking/ Reasoned:

Yes/ No Whether Reportable:

Yes/ No AVIN KUMAR 2024.08.21 17:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order.